| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2392W—continued
PRIME MINISTER
Aircraft Sales (Iran)
Mrs. May: To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was first informed of the letter written by Mr. David Mills to Baroness Symons in 2002 on Government assistance for the sale of aircraft to Iran. [59093]
The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Michael Ancram) on 24 January 2005.
Alistair Campbell
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister what work Mr. Alistair Campbell has undertaken for the Government since January 2005. [58049]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 20 December 2004, Official Report, column 1353W.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2393W
Cabinet Discussions (Iran)
Mrs. May: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what basis the decision was first taken that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) should not participate in Cabinet discussions on Iran; and what the basis is for her continued absence from such discussions; [59090]
(2) on what date the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) first absented herself from discussions in Cabinet and Cabinet Committees on matters relating to Iran; [59091]
(3) on what date the decision was taken that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) should not participate in Cabinet discussions about Iran. [59092]
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the current Parliament when members of the Cabinet have withdrawn from discussions in consideration of actual or perceived conflict of interest. [59153]
The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the press briefing given by my official spokesman on 13 March 2006, a copy of which is available on the Number 10 website. Information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet is not disclosed.
Departmental Estate
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost of building work at 10 Downing Street has been in the last three years. [55281]
The Prime Minister: The Downing Street complex, made up of Numbers 10, 11 and 12, is maintained to standards appropriate to its Grade 1/2 listed status in consultation with English Heritage. The building also fulfils an important representational role.
The total cost of refurbishment, maintenance and structural improvements for the whole Downing Street complex in the last three years has been:
| £ | |
|---|---|
| 2002–03 | 420,085 |
| 2003–04 | 547,911 |
| 2004–05 | 471,566 |
Figures for 2005–06 are not yet available.
Honours
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has been informed by the House of Lords Appointments Committee of the reasons why certain recent nominees for a peerage were rejected; and if he will make a statement. [58989]
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 27 February 2006, Official Report, column 36W.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his Department's response to the recommendation of the Public Administration Select Committee to set up an independent honours commission; and if he will make a statement. [59001]
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2394W
The Prime Minister: The Command Paper Reform of the Honours System" (Cm 6479) sets out the Government position. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.
In-patient Treatment
Mr. Mahmood: To ask the Prime Minister, how many people were waiting more than 15 months for in-patient treatment in (a) March 1997 and (b) January 2006. [59752]
The Prime Minister: In 1997 5,733 patients were waiting for more than 15 months. Waiting lists by time band for the period January 2005–06 were published by the Department of Health on 3 March 2006 and can be found on the Department of Health website and in the Library of the House.
In my answer to the right hon. Member for Witney (David Cameron) on 8 March 2006, Official Report, column 813, I inadvertently said that almost 300,000 people used to wait more than 15 months for their operation in 1997. This should have referred to the almost 300,000 people who waited more than 6 months for their operation in 1997.
Official Residences
Philip Davies: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to move out of the Home Secretary's official residence. [58562]
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Prime Minister on what date the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) left his official residence. [59184]
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already done so.
Patronage
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the House of Lords Appointments Commission to give its approval to the latest list of nominations for the peerage; and if he will make a statement. [57408]
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 27 February 2006, Official Report, column 36W.
Peerages
Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister what factors he took into account in recommending Sir Nigel Crisp for a peerage; and if he will make a statement. [58212]
The Prime Minister: As I said at Prime Minister's questions on 8 March 2006, Official Report, column 813W, Sir Nigel Crisp was a superb public servant who has overseen a transformation in the health service. He will be able to make a significant contribution to the work of the House of Lords.
State Opening of Parliament
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had on the Sovereign's role in the State Opening of Parliament. [57341]
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2395W
The Prime Minister: Information relating to internal meetings, discussion and advice is not disclosed as to do so could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Flood Prevention
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will increase expenditure on flood risk prevention measures, including the maintenance of existing defences. [56929]
Mr. Morley: Government funding (central and local) for flood and coastal erosion risk management has increased from £307 million in 1996–97 to an estimated outturn of some £600 million in 2005–06. Defra funding allocations have been fixed up to 2007–08 and for later years will be considered in the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007.
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what percentage margin of error she has allowed for her predictions of sea level rise on the East coast of England over the next (a) 10, (b) 20, (c) 50 and (d) 100 years; [56931]
(2) what the average level of sea rise was over the last 10 years on the East coast of England due to (a) climate change and (b) isostatic change; and what estimate she has made of the rise over the next (i) 10, (ii) 20, (iii) 50 and (iv) 100 years; [56935]
(3) what criteria were used in making the decision to require the Environment Agency and other operating authorities to assume that isostatic change on the East coast will be 1.5 mm a year; and what account was taken of the latest UK Climate Change Impacts Programme data in making the decision. [56936]
Mr. Morley: The Department does not issue predictions over these time periods. The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is funded by Defra and based at the university of Oxford. Their projections for sea level rise were last updated in November 2005 and are given in the form of ranges. For Eastern England these were from 17 cm (low emissions of greenhouse" gases, lowest estimate) to 77 cm (high emissions, highest estimate), including isostatic subsidence of 0.8 mm per year, for the period from 1975 to 2085. (The years 1975 and 2085 are the mid-points of the periods to which these estimates relate—1961–90 and 2071–2100 respectively.)
These ranges indicate the uncertainty inherent in such predictions which increases the further into the future one attempts to predict. There is significant inter-annual fluctuation in sea levels due to long-term tidal cycles and meteorological effects. It is not therefore helpful to look at relatively short-term changes over a single decade. The underlying rate of relative sea level rise in South and East England that takes account of both land level change and sea level rise has been of the order of 2 mm per year for recent decades.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2396W
The Department used the range of estimates published in the UKCIP 2002 report (from 22 cm to 82 cm for Eastern England for the period 1975 to 2085, including isostatic subsidence of 1.2 mm per year) as the basis of recommended allowances for use in the design and appraisal of coastal defences over the next 50 years that aim to balance appropriate precaution with the need to avoid expenditure on unnecessary works. For Eastern England the recommended allowance is 6 mm per year or 48 cm for the period 1975 to 2055 compared to the UK CIP estimate under high emissions of 42 cm for the same period. We are in discussion with the Environment Agency regarding appropriate allowances for the latter part of the century and expect to issue further interim guidance later in the year.
The changes between the UKCIP 2002 and 2005 estimates reflect changes in the isostatic (land movement) estimates. The main source on long term land movement in the UK, used as the basis for this recommendation and the UKCIP reports is the work of Ian Shennan at Durham university. The Defra recommended allowances have not been changed to reflect the 2005 change in estimate of land subsidence in Eastern England published by UKCIP. This and other evidence will be considered when the allowances are next reviewed but it is clear that they still represent a reasonably precautionary approach to the middle of the century. In view of the long term nature of coastal risk management investments and the time taken for project development, it is desirable that there should not be frequent fluctuations in the Defra recommended allowances.
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Treasury on setting a figure of 4.5 mm a year for sea level rise over the next 100 years for every tidal location in the UK as the basis for developing flood management strategies and shoreline management plans. [56932]
Mr. Morley: Defra has not had any specific discussions with HM Treasury on any particular estimates of sea level rise. The 4.5 mm per year is the average predicted sea level rise for every tidal location in England and Wales. This allowance is adjusted for long term land movement. The guidance was reviewed in 2003 and no changes were recommended. These allowances are published on our website and are subject to periodic reviews.
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the degree of variation between national and local data on sea level rise (a) along the Suffolk coast and (b) in Suffolk estuaries; and if she will take steps to measure local variations. [56933]
Mr. Morley:
No specific studies of these local variations have been made by Defra, though the national studies supported by the Department take account of data from the national network of tide gauges, including those at Lowestoft and Felixstowe. There are no plans for more local studies. They would be matters for the local operating authorities to consider, though caution would be needed in ensuring that any apparent short-term local trends were representative of wider underlying changes.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2397W
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account is taken in the allocation of capital grants for flood and river defence schemes between coastal and inland flood defence projects of (a) national priorities for protecting parts of the coast within areas of outstanding natural beauty and (b) maintaining high levels of employment and economic activity within these areas. [56963]
Mr. Morley: In order to be eligible for Defra grant, capital improvement projects must satisfy basic technical, economic and environmental criteria and the priority score requirement for the year in which they start.
Economic justification for proposed investment should as far as possible take into account benefits arising from protection of all assets, including those relating to the environment and economic activity such as tourism. Higher benefits in relation to costs will tend to increase a proposed project's priority for funding. No specific extra priority is given in the scoring system to projects which would reduce flood risk to areas of outstanding natural beauty but such a benefit could be included in the scoring system insofar as it could be quantified. The scoring system does not allocate grant between coastal and inland sites. Individual projects are considered equally for grant using the same criteria regardless of location.
It is important to note that the priority scoring system does not attempt to determine the need for defences in an absolute sense but to prioritise proposed projects so that finite funding is allocated to best effect nationally.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |